(12-16-2019 10:38 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  FYI, Cronin is 7-4 right now. Hard pass on taking him back.

Late game meltdowns are killing UC. I’ll give Brannen time.

Wednesday vs. Tennessee is huge for this OOC season for us though.

UCLA is a job killer. It's a program thing.

That's why I was surprised Mick was so dumb to go there.

Unlike KP and other metrics, NET does not take into account preseason rankings. Data is purely from the 2019-20 season.

(12-17-2019 07:34 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

Unlike KP and other metrics, NET does not take into account preseason rankings. Data is purely from the 2019-20 season.

If you watched this closely, you noticed that both of them were on the verge of cracking up a few times during the conversation.

The whole pro-NET argument was pretty bogus, and Katz wasn't pretending that he fell for half of the horse sh*t that the "NET apologist" was trying to sell him.

Like, we're supposed to be surprised that 16 of the NET top 18 teams got seeds that helped them get to the sweet sixteen? Who's he fooling? Do we all look like we just fell off a truck?

The truth of the matter was that last year's NET (secret formula, non-transparent) was so slanted that the selection committee found it most advisable to consult other rating systems before filling out the at-large bids.

Early NET ratings suggest that the formula may have been tweaked to some degree, so that it lines up fairly well with the indices of central tendency, such as the Massey Composite. Hopefully, these jive-a$$ed mfs have paid attention to some of the criticism leveled at them for over-weighting "scoring efficiency" (a proxy for piling on the points against bottom 200 teams).

(12-17-2019 01:35 AM)Fluke Wrote:  

(12-16-2019 10:38 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  FYI, Cronin is 7-4 right now. Hard pass on taking him back.

Late game meltdowns are killing UC. I’ll give Brannen time.

Wednesday vs. Tennessee is huge for this OOC season for us though.

I mean not that I think you guys should want him back but his year one results mean nothing. Like when people on the tigers board we’re trying to say Bruce pearl wasn’t a good coach based on his first year auburn record.

Same could be said about Brannen.

UC was due for a change. Mick is a stubborn guy and even when he knows he is wrong, he acts like he is still right. Mick is a good coach, but not great IMO. Fans were getting tired of his act year after year. (Ex. NCAA tourney is just for fans, deflections as his main statistical concern in pressers, etc.)

I don't know if Cali/West Coast kids are going to buy into his hard nose/blue collar style of basketball. If they do I think he will be successful since the kids will have enough talent to score without having an offensive minded coach. Yet to be seen.

For fun, I examined the calculations for known NET components (e.g., Scoring Margins) for Liberty (#19 NET) and Memphis (#16 NET). The TVI (Team Value Index) is a black box and is well beyond my poor capacity to review.

Liberty's very good showing relates to winning all games (most on the road or neutral sites) by healthy margins. The large margins boosted the second highest weighted "Net Efficiency" component. The large margins were made possible in large part by playing a poor schedule.

Liberty bested Memphis (when adjusted per D-1 game) in every component other than the unknown TVI. The TVI is an "algorithm set up to reward teams who beat other good teams". However, Memphis is ahead of Liberty by only three spots.

I guess I’m an outlier because I like the NET much better than the old RPI. Unlike the RPI which went strictly on who you play the net includes metrics for how you play. Under RPI if you played a bad team you were guaranteed to drop win or lose and it was just a matter of how far. With NET you can actually gain ground when playing a bad team if you play efficiently (good rebound margin, good assist/turnover ratio) and beat them by 10 points or more. No avoiding an RPI killer but avoiding a NET killer is up to you.

I don't think you should reward moral victories. That's what the NET does. Play a good team close get rewarded. But an L is an L why are we keeping a win loss record if it's about how good you play?

While these numbers may not accurately reflect how good a team is currently.

It does come close to reflecting how our conference will be viewed.

The best thing for the conference is for the teams that sucked in .Net OOC to continue to suck in conference to allow more opportunities for quality quadrant games. Unfortunately I don't see that happening.

(12-17-2019 01:17 PM)Nevadanatural Wrote:  I guess I’m an outlier because I like the NET much better than the old RPI. Unlike the RPI which went strictly on who you play the net includes metrics for how you play. Under RPI if you played a bad team you were guaranteed to drop win or lose and it was just a matter of how far. With NET you can actually gain ground when playing a bad team if you play efficiently (good rebound margin, good assist/turnover ratio) and beat them by 10 points or more. No avoiding an RPI killer but avoiding a NET killer is up to you.

I think the big issue most have with NET is that we don't know how the sausage is made.

I think they are moving in a positive direction by switching from RPI to NET. I would like some transparency.

(12-17-2019 06:30 PM)Wheatshock Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 01:17 PM)Nevadanatural Wrote:  I guess I’m an outlier because I like the NET much better than the old RPI. Unlike the RPI which went strictly on who you play the net includes metrics for how you play. Under RPI if you played a bad team you were guaranteed to drop win or lose and it was just a matter of how far. With NET you can actually gain ground when playing a bad team if you play efficiently (good rebound margin, good assist/turnover ratio) and beat them by 10 points or more. No avoiding an RPI killer but avoiding a NET killer is up to you.

I think the big issue most have with NET is that we don't know how the sausage is made.

I think they are moving in a positive direction by switching from RPI to NET. I would like some transparency.

Exactly....

Temple losses by one to Miami in Brooklyn. A team UConn beat by 25 on a neutral floor :)

Makes that Miami win look better and better as they should be a Q2 team for the season. Thank you Temple.

(12-18-2019 08:04 AM)BFieldHusky Wrote:  Temple losses by one to Miami in Brooklyn. A team UConn beat by 25 on a neutral floor :)

Makes that Miami win look better and better as they should be a Q2 team for the season. Thank you Temple.

Oh college basketball .. all that and Temple owns a 47 point win over a team that UCONN lost to by 9 ....

(12-18-2019 08:20 AM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 08:04 AM)BFieldHusky Wrote:  Temple losses by one to Miami in Brooklyn. A team UConn beat by 25 on a neutral floor :)

Makes that Miami win look better and better as they should be a Q2 team for the season. Thank you Temple.

Oh college basketball .. all that and Temple owns a 47 point win over a team that UCONN lost to by 9 ....

Right, that was one dumb post.

(12-18-2019 08:04 AM)BFieldHusky Wrote:  Temple losses by one to Miami in Brooklyn. A team UConn beat by 25 on a neutral floor.

After losing to UConn and Florida, Miami turned things around, and is now on a 3 game winning streak, which began with a road win @ 8-3 Illinois (an Illinois team that had just defeated Michigan).

Utah beats Kentucky. Tulane beat Utah (1 of their 2 losses). Beautiful

(12-18-2019 06:14 PM)vick mike Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 08:20 AM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 08:04 AM)BFieldHusky Wrote:  Temple losses by one to Miami in Brooklyn. A team UConn beat by 25 on a neutral floor :)

Makes that Miami win look better and better as they should be a Q2 team for the season. Thank you Temple.

Oh college basketball .. all that and Temple owns a 47 point win over a team that UCONN lost to by 9 ....

Right, that was one dumb post.

Still hurt over that loss?

(12-17-2019 09:02 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  The truth of the matter was that last year's NET (secret formula, non-transparent) was so slanted that the selection committee found it most advisable to consult other rating systems before filling out the at-large bids.

Early NET ratings suggest that the formula may have been tweaked to some degree, so that it lines up fairly well with the indices of central tendency, such as the Massey Composite. Hopefully, these jive-a$$ed mfs have paid attention to some of the criticism leveled at them for over-weighting "scoring efficiency" (a proxy for piling on the points against bottom 200 teams).

I agree about the lack of transparency and lack of outside accountability, but the intent from the beginning was to use other metrics and the discredited "eye test" for selection and seeding purposes.

Quote:“The NCAA Men’s Basketball Committee has had helpful metrics it has used over the years, and will continue to use the team sheets, but those will now be sorted by the NCAA Evaluation Tool,” Gavitt said. “As has always been the case, the committee won’t solely focus on metrics to select at-large teams and seed the field. There will always be a subjective element to the tournament selection process, too.”

Source

(12-19-2019 03:30 AM)Greenwavedrownsacat Wrote:  Utah beats Kentucky. Tulane beat Utah (1 of their 2 losses). Beautiful

Potential Q1 win right there. Saint Louis and Miss St. are both continuing to cruise to possible bids.

Update for games through 12/18

Cincy and USF with 20 point jumps
Tulane jumps up 9
For some reason SMU dropped 9

Also of note, Tennessee also dropped 20 spots down to 43, which move them to a Q2 win for Cincy for now